Jase.com

The timeline behind jase.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Jason Claiborne v. Naylor Networks Claim Number: FA0508000535347 PARTIES Complainant is Jason Claiborne (“Complainant”), 13901 Midway Road, Suite 102, Dallas, TX, 75244. Respondent is Naylor Networks (“Respondent”), 1040 Grant Road, Suite 155-151, Mountain View, CA, 94040 US. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <jase.com>, registered with Dotster. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically August 8, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint August 17, 2005. On August 8, 2005, Dotster confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <jase.com> domain name is registered with Dotster and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dotster verified that Respondent is bound by the Dotster registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On August 22, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 12, 2005, by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@jase.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On September 16, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. The domain name that Respondent registered, <jase.com>, is identical to Complainant’s JASE mark. 2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <jase.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <jase.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Jason Claiborne, is the owner of a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the JASE mark (Reg. No. 2,737,936 issued July 15, 2003, filed March 19, 2001). Complainant’s trademark registration indicates that the date of first use for the JASE mark was May 1, 2001. However, Complainant also holds a Nevada trademark registration showing that the first use of the mark was November 19, 1989. Complainant’s Jase World Water Foundation (the “Foundation) is one of several humanitarian water projects started by Complainant. The Foundation accepts donations, which are used to bottle and distribute clean water to humanitarian agencies throughout the world for consumption by dying children in underdeveloped countries. Complainant’s Foundation operates a website at the <jasewaterfoundation.com> domain name. Respondent registered the <jase.com> domain name April 10, 1999. Nothing suggests Respondent’s use of the domain name or whether Respondent has ever used the domain name for any purpose. Complainant offered to purchase the domain name registration from Respondent for $200, but Respondent did not accept the offer. Complainant then offered $1,000, but Respondent again refused to sell the domain name registration. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and will draw such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”). Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Identical to and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts rights in the JASE mark based on its registration of the mark with the USPTO. It is well established under the Policy that a complainant’s registration of a mark with a federal authority establishes a prima facie case of the complainant’s rights. See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (“Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.”); see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”). The <jase.com> domain name differs from Complainant’s JASE mark only with the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Adding a gTLD is irrelevant in determining similarity under the Policy and, therefore, does not function as a distinguishing feature. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra, Inc., D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (holding that the domain name <robohelp.com> is identical to the complainant’s registered ROBOHELP trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a distinguishing difference"); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) ("[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants . . . ."). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights to or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, Complainant has the initial burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant asserts that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001), the panel held: Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question. Id.; see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”). Having found that Complainant has met its initial burden by establishing a prima facie case, the Panel will now determine whether Respondent has met its burden to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). Respondent failed to file a response in this case and, therefore, has not provided any affirmative evidence that would establish that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the <jase.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent failed to meet its burden to show rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertions in this regard.”); see also Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that [Respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It also allows the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations set forth…as true.”). Consequently, the Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent demonstrated bad faith. The record permits an inference that Respondent registered but has not used the disputed domain name and that Respondent has held the name passively for sometime without using it. Further, Respondent has not offered the Panel evidence of intent to use or plans to use the domain name in the future. The Panel infers that Respondent has not made any use of the disputed domain name since registering the domain name more than six years ago and that Respondent has no future plans to use it. The Panel finds that passive holding under the Policy is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (“[I]t is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith.”); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <jase.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist Dated: September 30, 2005 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.